haaaaaaalp's profile

Na is in a better state than euw specifically because even though we have the same mmr/lp problems, ranked based mmr makes it slightly more manageable. Ranked will only get better for you when position mmr is added.

At least they aren’t guarenteed losses like they were last season. Use to lose games because autofilled players didn’t have the skill to match mains no matter how hard they tried. At least now the autofilled players who don’t care are matched at an appropriate level.

:
You're not willing to accept that the reason for some champions emerging is because of numerous other champions being nerfed.
Urgot got nerfed hard
Aatrox got nerfed hard
Akali got nerfed hard
Irelia got nerfed Vs. Riven (took away the shield busting thing from Irelias Q)
Cass got nerfed
Liss got nerfed
All of these champions kept Riven in check, and they also kept a lot of other champions in check. Nerfing them has un chained champions that were once stompers. New conqueror will be a hit to Rivens damage whether you like it or not, she doesn't have any innate armor pen in her kit like other champions do. She will lose out on 10% true damage, if any tanks come back, her win rate will go down a little bit, if Gnar comes back into the meta, her win rate will go down a little bit, if Liss comes back to top lane because she didn't get any actual heavy nerfs, Rivens win rate will go down a little bit.
Riven by herself IS NOT an over powered champion, she appears overpowered when everything else is weak, just like how Syndra does when everything in mid lane is weak, same thing with Lucian in the bot lane.
Give time for a strong meta to form after whats just happened to the meta pool (2-3 months) and Riven will be back in check without having to even touch her ratios or base stats.

Saying one champion is overpowered and everyone else is weak are just two sides of the same coin. Balance is based on how strong a champion is relative to everyone else in the league. After all of the other broken tier champions were nerfed, riven was clearly stronger than the average of the 140 champions this patch. Even if a few god tier champions are still stronger, riven would still have easily outclassed 2/3 of the the league lineup. Relative to the average league champion, riven was clearly overpowered and needed a nerf.
That being said, those numbers were with the old conqueror. It is possible that the new conqueror will be a strong enough nerf to her to bring her in line. I doubt it will bring her power level in line with the 70th strongest champion in league so any additional nerf would be justified although it wouldn’t be wrong to wait to make sure.

:
You just want to ignore the askriot that literally says both teams has chance of 50% +/-1 to win the game? This automatically means you WILL have a winrate around 50% once you found "your" elo, which is why I said that the system is ok as it is because people who deserve to climb will climb as easy as that.
Forcing a 50% winrate is just making games harder for the one who is constantly winning by getting paired with players worse him and enemies better than him. If Riots system would work the way you say it, there is no possible way that troller who on purpose troll for 20 games would be in plat/gold/silver games without dropping their MMR hard.
Also they say in the first sentence when asked about why they suddenly lose so much after a hot streak: "This is pretty much an urban myth. Mostly." MOSTLY, they could have straight said "no it's not true just unlucky for you" instead they admitted that it happens even if it's once in a while or hits almost every player on the planet.
DuoQ is still no argument, you can queue with a silver 4 player with very very very shitty MMR as a gold 4 player with very very very good MMR (to make it clear how very it is). It can happen, it DOES happen and it will happen because there are not enough limitations. More limitations would mean longer queue, which Riot tries to avoid (many people hate it).
My numbers are exaggerated but it can happen and Riots AskRiot from a year ago admits it indirectly.
EDIT: Your snowball point is correct, mb. It is a big problem in high elo.

> [{quoted}](name=HopeStartsWithU,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=opkWX7yT,comment-id=000b00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-19T13:39:41.233+0000)
>
> You just want to ignore the askriot that literally says both teams has chance of 50% +/-1 to win the game? This automatically means you WILL have a winrate around 50% once you found "your" elo, which is why I said that the system is ok as it is because people who deserve to climb will climb as easy as that.
>
> Forcing a 50% winrate is just making games harder for the one who is constantly winning by getting paired with players worse him and enemies better than him. If Riots system would work the way you say it, there is no possible way that troller who on purpose troll for 20 games would be in plat/gold/silver games without dropping their MMR hard.
These two statements imply a different model. The ask riot model simply says that the system will try to give each team a 50% chance of winning by putting players of equal skill on both teams. There is nothing about putting weaker players on a person's team as they win.
Also, the mmr model which riot uses is about +/- 12 or 13 elo per game and each tier is about 350 elo. A diamond player who loses 20 straight games would easily stay in low plat.
> Also they say in the first sentence when asked about why they suddenly lose so much after a hot streak: "This is pretty much an urban myth. Mostly." MOSTLY, they could have straight said "no it's not true just unlucky for you" instead they admitted that it happens even if it's once in a while or hits almost every player on the planet.
You are reading too much into something which isn't there. Every winning streak is followed by a loss because everyone will eventually lose.
> DuoQ is still no argument, you can queue with a silver 4 player with very very very shitty MMR as a gold 4 player with very very very good MMR (to make it clear how very it is). It can happen, it DOES happen and it will happen because there are not enough limitations. More limitations would mean longer queue, which Riot tries to avoid (many people hate it).
>
> My numbers are exaggerated but it can happen and Riots AskRiot from a year ago admits it indirectly.
Except your numbers only happen when two players with very large mmr gaps intentionally queue together which forces the system to accommodate. It is not the system trying to force anything, it is two players trying to push the bounds of what mmr can and cannot do.
>
> EDIT: Your snowball point is correct, mb. It is a big problem in high elo.

Because true damage itself isn't a problem. 10 true damage and 20 physical damage do the same thing against a 100 armor target. Conqueror is only a problem when it is given to a champion who was designed to be hard countered by armor.

Champion diversity was one of the key core gameplay elements which made the game fun to play. You can't remove such an important part and then claim the core gameplay is not strong. The best thing about the earlier seasons was not only the champion diversity but the build diversity among the champions.

Her current kit has all of the same elements. The only problem I see is the passive and e together giving too much ranged aoe damage. However, she is still mana based no hard cc with reasonable ranges and cast times and most importantly, no dashes or flashes. It is a pretty good rework overall and I don't see it causing half of the problems the last 3 reworks did.

Yeah, I have no idea why riot is presenting it as fun. The main reason for it is because the old matchmaking system simply wasn't working with people getting autofilled in mmr brackets they don't belong. Riot should have just presented it for what it was, it was a change that ranked needs, not something people want. Would have caused less headaches from the start if people were made to realize this.

:
First you say it's not statistically possible to make a system that considers so many factors (winrate, mmr, streaks etc.) then you say you matchmaking will put 100 mmr players with 9 other players with pretty much the same mmr. Which is pretty much the same. Queue times would be too long to find people with the almost same MMR AND to keep track with the role preferences.
How "my" model would work you ask?
You queue up --> The game throws you automatically into a pool (if you are the first one to queue up a new pool will be created)
--> You "keep" your assigned roles as primary and secondary --> Matchmaking searches for more players around your MMR (we don't know the MMR numbers it can have a large difference or a pretty low but definitly not +/-1) with different roles, keep in mind teams are not made up yet
--> Matchmaking needs for every role 2 players (enemy and own team) --> Now here comes the part of filling a role
--> If the game doesn't find a support role, the game will check if someone didn't get filled for a while now. The more games you play without being filled the more likely you will get filled in your next game and this is stated by Riot.
This is just the basic of matchmaking you can imagine this in every matchmade game.
Your snowball argument doesn't make much sense because matchmaking was ALWAYS like that except that you had to call your role before the game started just like in normal games which is also why finding games got harder thanks to the role preferences. Also people just int and troll in every elo, it always happens and some (or a lot) have a really bad game once in a while. Snowball was always part of the game and
Just because the DuoQ limitation exists officially there, doesn't mean Riot doesn't use it on SoloQ. Your system would be the "perfect" system, which can't exist.
Riot stated in their askriot that MMR between TEAMS differ at most 5 MMR which doesn't imply that you can have someone with less MMR while you have more than him.
http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=12029
A post from 2009, explaining it pretty well actually and correcting my wrong parts most likely.

> [{quoted}](name=HopeStartsWithU,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=opkWX7yT,comment-id=000b000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T15:29:30.085+0000)
>
> First you say it's not statistically possible to make a system that considers so many factors (winrate, mmr, streaks etc.) then you say you matchmaking will put 100 mmr players with 9 other players with pretty much the same mmr. Which is pretty much the same. Queue times would be too long to find people with the almost same MMR AND to keep track with the role preferences.
>
> How "my" model would work you ask?
> You queue up --> The game throws you automatically into a pool (if you are the first one to queue up a new pool will be created)
> --> You "keep" your assigned roles as primary and secondary --> Matchmaking searches for more players around your MMR (we don't know the MMR numbers it can have a large difference or a pretty low but definitly not +/-1) with different roles, keep in mind teams are not made up yet
> --> Matchmaking needs for every role 2 players (enemy and own team) --> Now here comes the part of filling a role
> --> If the game doesn't find a support role, the game will check if someone didn't get filled for a while now. The more games you play without being filled the more likely you will get filled in your next game and this is stated by Riot.
>
> This is just the basic of matchmaking you can imagine this in every matchmade game.
That part is fine. However, no part of that system will pair a 100 mmr player with someone that has half their mmr. Everyone would be very close in mmr. There may be some negligable differences between players but nothing large enough that the system will active bother rigging games for.
There is also no forced 50% winrate in your system at all. As a player climbs in your system, their mmr gets higher and the mmr of their allies also get higher. You are just describing a basic elo model without any of the 50% forced mechanisms you were claiming it had earlier.
> Your snowball argument doesn't make much sense because matchmaking was ALWAYS like that except that you had to call your role before the game started just like in normal games which is also why finding games got harder thanks to the role preferences. Also people just int and troll in every elo, it always happens and some (or a lot) have a really bad game once in a while. Snowball was always part of the game and
That was to your point of allies holding you back more in higher elo. Snowballing is not nearly as big part of the game in lower elo
> Just because the DuoQ limitation exists officially there, doesn't mean Riot doesn't use it on SoloQ. Your system would be the "perfect" system, which can't exist.
>
>
> Riot stated in their askriot that MMR between TEAMS differ at most 5 MMR which doesn't imply that you can have someone with less MMR while you have more than him.
>
> http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=12029
>
> A post from 2009, explaining it pretty well actually and correcting my wrong parts most likely.
2009 was with higher duo queue differences. The example you gave of 100 mmr and 50 mmr may have existed back then but it can't happen now due to duo queue limitations.

:
Except, this is how almost every game with a matchmaking works. Why do you think so many people in high elo wait so long for a game? There are statistically less players in high elo than low elo. Gold to Iron makes almost 88-90% of the playerbase. Almost 9-10% platinum and the rest dia+.
The system doesn't look at the winrate, this is what I said in my "correction" post -->"The system picks player with a worse MMR than you have on purpose." Just pick 10 random dudes who are around gold 1 to gold 4, read out their MMRs and try to average them out so both teams have the chance to win, thus both teams have a winrate of 50%.
Now lets use random numbers for our MMRs: You have, lets say, 100 MMR points and the rest of your team has 50. Your team would have an average of 60 MMR. The system will automatically make the enemeis around the same MMR or a bit less or more. Now, in a perfect world you would play against someone on lane who also has 100 MMR and the rest of your team also play against people with the exact same MMR. But that doesn't work out, MMR changes with every game and everyone plays different, so the system picks players around gold 1-4 and try to match your games MMR.
But how said MMR is calculated is unknown to us so nobody can abuse the system.
If we can trust Riots "ask riot" there shouldn't be any issues and people shouldn't be thinking they are automatically sabotaged when on a hot streak. But from experience (not just me but many others) even if you do well in higher MMR games, it's very likely that your team will let you down. And I doubt Riot will ever admit that this is the case.
https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-pl/2018/02/dev-matchmaking-real-talk/
The pool stuff was from a Riot post a very looong time ago on the boards so I can't provide proof for that sadly.

> [{quoted}](name=HopeStartsWithU,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=opkWX7yT,comment-id=000b0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T13:00:48.544+0000)
>
> Except, this is how almost every game with a matchmaking works. Why do you think so many people in high elo wait so long for a game? There are statistically less players in high elo than low elo. Gold to Iron makes almost 88-90% of the playerbase. Almost 9-10% platinum and the rest dia+.
>
> The system doesn't look at the winrate, this is what I said in my "correction" post -->"The system picks player with a worse MMR than you have on purpose." Just pick 10 random dudes who are around gold 1 to gold 4, read out their MMRs and try to average them out so both teams have the chance to win, thus both teams have a winrate of 50%.
>
> Now lets use random numbers for our MMRs: You have, lets say, 100 MMR points and the rest of your team has 50. Your team would have an average of 60 MMR. The system will automatically make the enemeis around the same MMR or a bit less or more. Now, in a perfect world you would play against someone on lane who also has 100 MMR and the rest of your team also play against people with the exact same MMR. But that doesn't work out, MMR changes with every game and everyone plays different, so the system picks players around gold 1-4 and try to match your games MMR.
>
> But how said MMR is calculated is unknown to us so nobody can abuse the system.
>
> If we can trust Riots "ask riot" there shouldn't be any issues and people shouldn't be thinking they are automatically sabotaged when on a hot streak. But from experience (not just me but many others) even if you do well in higher MMR games, it's very likely that your team will let you down. And I doubt Riot will ever admit that this is the case.
>
>
> https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-pl/2018/02/dev-matchmaking-real-talk/
> The pool stuff was from a Riot post a very looong time ago on the boards so I can't provide proof for that sadly.
Actually no, matchmaking will just put the 100 mmr player with 9 other players between 99 and 101 mmr and the 50 mmr player with 9 other players between 49-51. What you are thinking of is when players with large mmr gaps play duo queue together. Previously, there were far less limitations on who could and who could not duo together so it was possible for a 100 mmr and a 50 mmr player to duo together and force the system to play them together.
Games are just naturally more snowbally in high elo due to the level of play. People who carry one game will feed the next despite being up against the same opponents due to how much players can snowball advantages.
Also, how would your system work with role preferences? In your model where matchmaking just pulls 10 random players with various mmr, how can matchmaking keep any semblance of role preference if it is trying to force a 50% winrate via mmr? And what about players who have different mmr on different roles?

:
If what you say is true, why don't riot show us our MMR and shut all the haters up?
That is what I want to know. Because I can guarantee you won't find more than 10% of the community unwilling to be shown their and their team's and enemies' MMR.
I am 100% sure MMR is not the only factor people are matched based on

> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=opkWX7yT,comment-id=0021,timestamp=2019-02-17T22:02:40.114+0000)
>
> If what you say is true, why don't riot show us our MMR and shut all the haters up?
>
> That is what I want to know. Because I can guarantee you won't find more than 10% of the community unwilling to be shown their and their team's and enemies' MMR.
>
> I am 100% sure MMR is not the only factor people are matched based on
Because you can't sway conspiracy theorists with facts or numbers. Look at all of the crazy forced 50% winrate systems people are making up. The vast majority of them are completely incompatible with role select and the current queue times and people still believe them. We even had visible mmr for the first two seasons and people still came up with crazy conspiracy theories which did nothing more than obscure the actual problems with the elo system.

:
It doesnt look at it on a specific way. I just worded it bad. The system picks player with a worse MMR than you have on purpose. When you queue up you are in a pool for a game. The pool will fill until it's full, in other words 10 players. You then get automatically people with a lower MMR in your team if you are too good simply because your MMR is pulling the other players up to achieve almost the same average of MMR as the enemies in an average have.
Now, people who has low MMR in your elo automatically are losing a lot. This doesn't mean they are in a losing streak (as I said I worded that pretty bad). You don't jump elos with just winning, you have to complete promos and you also don't drop after achieving a higher elo because you are "protected" by the system. Meaning if you are Gold 4, won a lot of games but lost promos and yet someone who just got Gold 4 but lost a lot of games without dropping can still be matched with you in your team with a very bad MMR. I am also pretty sure you can lose at least 8-10 games without dropping.
I hope that makes it more clear now? My english isn't really good so sorry for that.

> [{quoted}](name=HopeStartsWithU,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=opkWX7yT,comment-id=000b00000000,timestamp=2019-02-17T15:39:09.057+0000)
>
> It doesnt look at it on a specific way. I just worded it bad. The system picks player with a worse MMR than you have on purpose. When you queue up you are in a pool for a game. The pool will fill until it's full, in other words 10 players. You then get automatically people with a lower MMR in your team if you are too good simply because your MMR is pulling the other players up to achieve almost the same average of MMR as the enemies in an average have.
>
> Now, people who has low MMR in your elo automatically are losing a lot. This doesn't mean they are in a losing streak (as I said I worded that pretty bad). You don't jump elos with just winning, you have to complete promos and you also don't drop after achieving a higher elo because you are "protected" by the system. Meaning if you are Gold 4, won a lot of games but lost promos and yet someone who just got Gold 4 but lost a lot of games without dropping can still be matched with you in your team with a very bad MMR. I am also pretty sure you can lose at least 8-10 games without dropping.
>
> I hope that makes it more clear now? My english isn't really good so sorry for that.
That still doesn’t seem statistically feasible. The pool for players with low mmr who have the same visible rank is very small compared to the general population. Queue times would skyrocket if the system had to wait for them every time someone had a good win ratio.
Realistically, any system which tries to enforce a 50% winrate with positional rankings while still keeping players in the same rank would require insane queue times. There are just too many constraints. The only system that can give the current queue times would be a generic elo system which simply pulls 10 players in the same mmr bracket.

:
Everything you said is right, except for the point of "Your opponents get better, your teammates get better. At the same rate." This is simply not true. You can force a 50% with many other factors. You can play against the same skill level you are right now and get worse teammates in your promos, meaning you have to carry 4 worse players while beating 4 who are playing just like you do.
Teammates get better with climbing divisions/ranks but only if you have the right winrate for it. Having a winning streak of 5 games doesn't change your MMR drastically to the point where every enemy has to stomp your mates into oblivion. You are in a losing streak simply because you won too many games in a row, bringing your "current" winrate out of proportion. And the system tries to match that "rise" in skill by either giving you mates who are on a losing streak (or are too bad for your elo) or giving you opponents that are too tough for you to handle. Or you get both, too good enemies and too bad mates. It happens all the time and to everyone.
I do think that this system is fine though because the ones who really deserve it will maintain a higher elo and win games by force. (People don't like that system but on an objective perspective it's the easiest way to determine the good and the bad players otherwise nobody would reach challenger)

That is not something an automated system can realistically do. If the system was trying to find 4 allies on a losing streak for everyone who happens to be winning a lot, queue times would become completely untenable. The only way for matchmaking to keep times low is to simply match 10 players with the same elo reguardless of winrate. If it starts to try to look at mmr, winrates, recent winstreaks, and positional rank, you are looking at hour long queue times.
The system isn't trying to artificially raise or lower the difficulty beyond the natural progression of the elo system. There is just so much fluxuation and snowballing in the game right now that there are a ton of one-sided games.

> [{quoted}](name=Dukues,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b5A48Q2l,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-16T19:26:19.001+0000)
>
> Not sure they will. Some will..... but there are a lot of players who don't play that much. More than you think actually
Don’t need everyone to, the community as a whole just has to keep playing and unless the server shuts down in the next month, that is guarenteed to happen.

:
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b5A48Q2l,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-16T16:47:36.913+0000)
>
> New ranked system has nothing to do with impressing anyone. It simply was to fix the fact that the community as a whole simply could not play all 5 roles well enough for the old system to work. Autofill games were unplayable because of skill level discrepancy so riot was forced to act.
>
> The new ranked system isn't necessarily good per say, the community was just too bad to make the old system work.
Has it really even helped though? I mean it is early season so match making always bad. But I haven't noticed at difference at all. Almost every game feels completely one sided. I get what they going for but unless people are prepared to play hundreds of games on each role it's never going to work out. And let's face it... even in high elo people aren't going to play hundreds of games in off roles for most part so its still not going to result in great match making. Just a longer climb for people who actually play more than one role.

> [{quoted}](name=Dukues,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b5A48Q2l,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-02-16T18:00:08.742+0000)
>
> Has it really even helped though? I mean it is early season so match making always bad. But I haven't noticed at difference at all. Almost every game feels completely one sided. I get what they going for but unless people are prepared to play hundreds of games on each role it's never going to work out. And let's face it... even in high elo people aren't going to play hundreds of games in off roles for most part so its still not going to result in great match making. Just a longer climb for people who actually play more than one role.
It is better than doing nothing. Eventually, players will play enough games for it to matter.

I feel that the current system of decoupling mmr and rank has better for combatting smurfs than if we were to remove it. With the current system, riot can ramp up mmr gains for smurfs without actually giving them credit for the rank. After a few games, they will be playing against players at their own skill level while their account still shows iron. This allows the system to limit the damage caused by smurfs (by putting them into high ranked games faster) while removing the rewards for the smurfing player (by still having their account show iron or bronze).
The main problem is that no ranking system in the world can put smurfs into the rank where they aren't ruining games without a large sample size.

New ranked system has nothing to do with impressing anyone. It simply was to fix the fact that the community as a whole simply could not play all 5 roles well enough for the old system to work. Autofill games were unplayable because of skill level discrepancy so riot was forced to act.
The new ranked system isn't necessarily good per say, the community was just too bad to make the old system work.

Except they are not punished for it, they just get cachall message riot sends to everyone while riot monitors the new system. Just ignore the message, it was meant for duo queue players who consistently switch but riot just wanted to give everyone an early heads up while the system is new.

:
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=yo2m1yVc,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-02-15T16:29:52.628+0000)
>
> You can't tell exactly which nerfs will be overnerfs and which ones will be just right. In the case of a champion like akali or aatrox who were clearly overpowered, it was better to side on the side of overnerfing than undernerfing. The amount of times an ally picks a champion that is overnerfed is minimal compared to the amount of times an enely picks an overpowered one.
I _**know**_ you can't. That's exactly the fault of adjusting two variables at the same time. You can't know which one was actually the problem.
You have no basis to claim it's better to apply two nerfs at once. For you to claim that, they'd have to have done one or the other and then found out that that wasn't enough.

> [{quoted}](name=DeceasedL0ved0ne,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=yo2m1yVc,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-16T04:25:29.971+0000)
>
> I _**know**_ you can't. That's exactly the fault of adjusting two variables at the same time. You can't know which one was actually the problem.
>
> You have no basis to claim it's better to apply two nerfs at once. For you to claim that, they'd have to have done one or the other and then found out that that wasn't enough.
You don’t need to know one is not enough to do two nerfs. The first priority is to make sure the champion is no longer overpowered. If that means hitting two stats and not knowing which one was more important, than so be it. It is better to overnerf them than to risk them remaining a problem.

:
> [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=yo2m1yVc,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-15T14:32:26.226+0000)
>
> It is better to overnerf something and buff them back up later than leave them overpowered. Overpowered champions cause far more problems than underpowered ones.
But that's not what we're discussing. I'm talking about a nerf never being an over-nerf in the first place. And no, underpowered champions are just as much of a problem. If not more. You can prevent an enemy from getting an overpowered champion. You can't effectively stop an ally from picking one that's too weak.

> [{quoted}](name=DeceasedL0ved0ne,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=yo2m1yVc,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-02-15T14:53:38.381+0000)
>
> But that's not what we're discussing. I'm talking about a nerf never being an over-nerf in the first place. And no, underpowered champions are just as much of a problem. If not more. You can prevent an enemy from getting an overpowered champion. You can't effectively stop an ally from picking one that's too weak.
You can't tell exactly which nerfs will be overnerfs and which ones will be just right. In the case of a champion like akali or aatrox who were clearly overpowered, it was better to side on the side of overnerfing than undernerfing. The amount of times an ally picks a champion that is overnerfed is minimal compared to the amount of times an enely picks an overpowered one.

Game was even worse, autofill made rank an unplayable cesspool last season with single ranks. Realistically, autofill needs to go as it is the driving force for all of the problems listed. That being said, the current system is at least better than last season.

:
> [{quoted}](name=Ozzburne,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WiN6X1s5,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-13T11:03:03.188+0000)
>
> 7% ban rate doesnt look right?
>
> Play rate of 6% isn’t anytging either?
>
> Honestly these stats are middling at best y’all are just sour at literally nothing
High banrate is one thing. Putting it alongside the fact that he still retains a high pickrate &amp; wildy have an above 50% winrate with those 2 stats says too much.
But of course, I'm talking to an M7 Yasuo, so I can understand your bias perspective.

Except the stats you listed aren't high by any measure. 7% ban rate and 6% play rate would be completely fine. The problem is that champion.gg has inaccurate stats. Yasuo is actually sitting around 60% banrate and 20% pick rate. Your points aren't wrong, yasuo is sitting at a very high pick and ban rate, your source for those stats just happen to be very off.

Because he has a healthy base kit. He is a mana based melee champion with reasonable cast times short range no cc and clear drawbacks on each of his spells. The only thing which would potentially cause a problem is resetting mobility which is slower than kat who has also had reserving mobility in the past. He never needed a large rework, just shuffling around his upgrade mechanic which was not well thought out on release.

Would not account for the numbers shown, especially with yasuo's armor pen. Yasuo deals a ton of damage but most of it should be physical, dealing that much true damage with the current mechanical in place is likely a bug.

Wait how the hell? Yasuo is averaging like 3k true damage a game, how the hell did he do 18k? You should probably send a support ticket, that sounds like a huge bug.
Yasuo has many problems but his true damage isn’t one of them.

They need to rework the formula but going back to kill only bounties would be a step backwards. It never made any sense why kills were the only thing taxed via bounties when cs and objectives mattered so much more. Realistically, cs, map pressure, vision, gold, and exp should all factor into bounties.

:
> [{quoted}](name=Paroe,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Ghsf2nzE,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-12T01:05:07.561+0000)
>
> EN-forced.
> The system doesnt keep you at a hard 50%, it tries to keep you at 50% by giving you better or worse team mates depending on if youre above (worse team mates) or below (better team mates).
why don't you get better and better teammates the more you win instead of making you carry bad ones?
(edit) obviously the enemies would get better as well

There is no need. Once the system calibrates, players will be at the right mmr even on off roles. Riot just wanted too long so the system needs to undo 3 years of mixed mmr placing people in the wrong place on the ladder.

:
Because people would stop playing the game if they are fine with their rank.
Not only promos are rigged. The fuckin forced 50 % winrate is the scummiest thing ever. I had 75 % winrate and the system punished me with 3 X 30 % winrate teammates.
Riot can fuck off when they punish you for flaming but they put you trough toxic environment on purpose.

:
The most I ever got was 25 lol Whatever they are doing it’s unfair and unbalanced. If people are going to fall let them do it naturally. Don’t abuse the LP system and force people into dropping ranks because they fucked up

If that is the case, then your account is bugged and you should send a support ticket. You have a unique case which riot is probably not aware and the problems you are experiencing are due to a bug and not intentions of the system.

And this is specifically why we have the position based mmr. Players are being put into separate mmr based on role so they are autofilled into the appropriate mmr. The problem is that riot delayed implementing role based mmr for 3 seasons so it will take ranked a few months to equlibrate. Role based mmr should have been implement at the start of role queue, no idea why we waited so long (and why certain people want to delay it even further).

The meta is being balanced specifically so that this type of play style is rewarded. Riot is actively punishing passive play and encouraging players to continue to fight despite being behind by removing all other methods of comeback.

Shouldn't ranged attacks not give full stack for the new conqueror? The only reason the old fervor worked was because ranged attacks stacked it slower than melee. Otherwise, it will be too strong on marksmen.

At this point, they should just bring in fervor as a stopgap and then take time to fine tune a true damage rune. The problem with conqueror was that it was expected to be both an anti-tank and bruiser main rune. Would be much better if riot just split it into two different runes, one as a main bruiser rune and one as a general anti-rank rune.